coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.
5.  On 11 December 1998 a local hospital, upon the request of the applicant’s employer, issued a certificate (“the Certificate”) confirming that the applicant had undergone an eight-month medical treatment. The Certificate also specified the applicant’s diagnosis and recommended that his employment should not include night-watchman duties, emotional stresses or irregular working hours.
6.  On 17 December 1998 the applicant was dismissed from his job for health reasons. His claim against the former employer in respect of reinstatement and recovery of salary arrears was rejected by final decision of the Supreme Court on 7 September 2001. The courts established, inter alia, that the Certificate was lawful and did not breach the applicant’s right to private life as the diagnosis had also been reflected in the sick-leave certificates possessed by the employer.
7.  On 22 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the local hospital in the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk claiming that the Certificate was unlawful in so far as it had been issued in breach of his right to private life and seeking damages.
8.  On 5 May 2001 the court referred the claim to the Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) in view of its lack of territorial jurisdiction over the case.
9.  By a letter of 20 November 2001 the President of the District Court returned the claim to the applicant noting that the latter had failed to comply with the procedural rules. No formal decision was taken.
10.  On 17 December 2001, following a complaint by the applicant, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) ordered the President of the District Court to decide on the admissibility of the applicant’s claim in accordance with the procedural requirements.
11.  On 13 February 2002 the District Court declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible.
12.  On 23 April 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 13 February 2002 as unfounded and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration of admissibility.
13.  On 27 June 2002 the District Court declared the claim admissible and scheduled a hearing in the case.
14.  On 19 April 2004 the District Court, having held a number of hearings, rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. It noted in particular that the lawfulness of the Certificate had already been verified by the courts in the applicant’s proceedings against his employer and the relevant court decisions had become final and binding.
15.  On 14 July 2004 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the judgment of 19 April 2004.
16.  On 12 August 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 11 July 2005 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that its case list was overloaded but some administrative solutions were to be implemented.
17.  On 16 June 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal as unfounded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Pečovská Nová Ves.
5.  On 16 February 1996 the Prešov District Court delivered a judgment in an inheritance dispute. The judgment became final on 14 March 1996.
6.  On 28 August 1996 the Košice Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal as lodged by a person who lacked standing in the proceedings.
7.  On 5 May 2001 the applicant sought a determination of the ownership rights in respect of a plot of land which had also been the subject matter of the above inheritance proceedings.
8.  On 26 November 2003 the Prešov District Court dismissed his claim and the judgment was upheld by the Prešov Regional Court on 7 December 2005.
9.  On 13 April 2006 the district court transmitted the case file to the Supreme Court for a decision on the applicant's appeal on points of law. On 22 May 2006 the Supreme Court returned the case file to the district court as having been transmitted prematurely. The Supreme Court stated that the judgment of 7 December 2005 had not been served on one of the defendants and, therefore, had not become final. It further stated that the district court should decide whether to grant the applicant exemption from his obligation to pay court fees and to instruct the applicant to eliminate shortcomings in his appeal on points of law.
10.  On 23 and 26 June and 6 October 2006 the applicant amended his appeal on points of law. On 25 July the district court exempted the applicant from his obligation to pay court fees. On 14 October 2006 the judgment was served on the defendant and became final.
11.  On 13 November 2006 the case file was again transmitted to the Supreme Court. On 19 March 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law. The decision became final on 4 May 2007.
12.  On 2 March 2006 the applicant complained about a violation of his right to judicial protection and to a “fair trial” within a “reasonable time” as a result of (i) the course of the above sets of proceedings and (ii) the judgments of the district court of 16 February 1996 and of the regional court of 7 December 2005.
13.  On 22 November 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint for various reasons. As to the inheritance proceedings, the complaint was rejected as being belated.
14.  As to the civil proceedings, the Constitutional Court noted that at the time of lodging the constitutional complaint the judgment of the regional court had not become final as it had not yet been served on one of the parties to the proceedings. However, the Constitutional Court held that the appellate court had already delivered its judgment and thus the applicant's legal uncertainty had been eliminated at the time of lodging his constitutional complaint. Therefore, the Constitutional Court rejected the length of proceedings complaint as being manifestly ill-founded.
15.  It rejected the complaint about unfairness as being manifestly ill‑founded, holding that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the course of the proceedings before the regional court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Odessa.
5.  On 23 December 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa against the local land department. He sought the acknowledgement of his ownership title over a land plot which according to him was within his family estate.
6.  On 27 September 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Odessa against the municipal council seeking the ownership certificates in respect of the disputed land to be declared invalid. The two claims were subsequently joined into one case.
7.  K., a private person and the owner of the disputed land plot, participated in the proceedings as a third party.
8.  On 16 August 2001 the Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa left the applicant’s claims without examination in view of his repeated failure to appear before the court. On 27 November 2001 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 16 August 2001 and sent the case for further examination.
9.  On 24 May 2002 the Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa found that the applicant had no legal basis to claim a title to the land plot and rejected his claims as unsubstantiated.
10.  On 6 September 2004 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal which he had to re-submit on several occasions in order to comply with procedural requirements and upheld the judgment of 24 May 2002.
11.  On 5 October 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.
12.  On 20 July 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
13.  The applicant received a copy of the ruling of 20 July 2007 in September 2009 after he had lodged a number of enquiries with the courts.
14.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant lodged a number of procedural requests, some of which were allowed, including those concerning the application of provisional measures, withdrawal of the judges from his case, suspension of the proceedings in view of his health problems and pending the outcome of a criminal case against a private person concerning the matter. He also lodged appeals against some of the procedural rulings and requested copies of documents from the case-file. On six occasions the applicant failed to appear before the courts or requested adjournment of the hearings because of his health problems which caused a delay of about seven months. Another five-month delay was caused by respondents’ non-appearance before the courts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962. He currently serves a prison sentence in the Mykolayiv Region.
5.  On 12 October 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of extortion.
6.  On 28 December 1999, following the completion of the pre-trial investigations, the case was referred to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol, which on 4 May 2000 remitted the case for additional investigations.
7.  On 14 September 2000, following the completion of the additional investigations, the case was referred to the same court.
8.  Following three reconsiderations of the case by the courts of first and appeal instances, on 2 February 2005 the Tsentralnyy Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment with confiscation of property.
9.  On 29 March 2005 and 28 February 2006 respectively the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment.
10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings against the applicant the investigators also brought charges against five other persons (in respect of three of them the criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued) and questioned eighty-seven witnesses and four aggrieved parties. During the trial the courts had to hear three co-defendants, forty witnesses and several aggrieved parties, which took them about four months. One forensic examination was carried out between 26 May and 18 July 2000. Twenty hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses', aggrieved parties' or co-defendants' failure to appear or illness of a judge.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Melitopol.
5.  On 23 October 1995 Mrs P., the applicant's former wife, instituted divorce proceedings in the Melitopol Court against the applicant. She also sought separation of their property.
6.  On 19 March 1996 the applicant lodged a counter-claim.
7.  On 10 January 1997 the court disjoined the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning separation of property.
8.  By a judgment of 15 May 2002, the court allowed the applicant's counter-claim in part and ordered the separation of property comprising of various household items (furniture, kitchen utensils, etc.).
9.  On 25 July 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.
10.  On 16 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the above decisions and on 11 November 2002 he requested the courts to renew the procedural time-limit for lodging it. On 2 December 2002 the Melitopol Court rejected the applicant's request as unsubstantiated. On 24 March 2003 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal upheld the above decision. On 19 August 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions as unsubstantiated and on 27 September 2004 the Melitopol Court renewed the applicant the time-limit for lodging his appeal in cassation.
11.  On 24 March 2007 the Supreme Court forwarded the applicant's appeal in cassation to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, which, acting as a court of cassation, rejected it as unsubstantiated on 7 May 2007.
12.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended his counter-claim on several occasions. The courts adjourned eight hearings following his requests or due to his failure to appear. Some nine hearings were further adjourned following the requests of Mrs P., her failure to appear or due to the illness of a judge.
13.  The applicant stated that in September 2005 he had been deprived of a flat he had lived in together with Mrs P. The applicant instituted court proceedings against Mrs P. concerning his right to live in the flat. He has not provided any information as to their outcome.
4.  The applicants were born in 1968 and live in Kremenchug.
5.  On 7 August 1997 they instituted court proceedings against the U. bank in a dispute over a contract of pledge of a car.
6.  On 18 February 2002 the Svitlovodsk Court delivered a judgment in the case. On 27 June 2002 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld it. On 10 November 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
7.  On 8 November 2005 the Svitlovodsk Court partially allowed the applicants' claim, declared the contract of pledge invalid and ordered the U. bank to pay the applicants certain amounts for the cost of the car, inflation losses and exemplary damages.
8.  On 23 December 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment in the part concerning the award and upheld its remainder.
9.  On 16 June 2006, following the applicants' failure to lodge their appeal in cassation in accordance with the procedural requirements, the Supreme Court returned it unexamined.
10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings three hearings were adjourned due to the applicants' failure to appear and four hearings were adjourned due to both parties' failure to appear. The applicants disagreed stating that they had not attended only two hearings. Seven other hearings were adjourned upon the respondent's request, for third party's failure to appear or due to the absence of a judge.
4.  On 24 February 1994 the applicants were taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
5.  On 11 March 1994 the applicants were brought before the investigating judge at the İstanbul State Security Court, who ordered their detention pending trial.
6.  On 23 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, charging them under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
7.  On 5 May 1999 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the first applicant as charged and sentenced him to death. As regards the second applicant, the court decided that his case should be disjoined from the file as his defence had not been submitted to the court.
8.  On 29 February 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 5 May 1999.
9.  The case was remitted to the İstanbul State Security Court for further examination.
10.  On 5 February 2001 the second applicant's case was joined to the file again.
11.  On 21 June 2004 the applicants were released pending trial.
12.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicants was subsequently resumed before the İstanbul Assize Court.
13.  According to the information submitted to the case file on 3 February 2010 the proceedings are currently pending before the İstanbul Assize Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa.
5.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Bratislava IV District Court against the Slovak Television (a State-owned public television network). He mainly claimed compensation for the damage allegedly caused by the defendant company in breach of the applicant’s intellectual property rights. The claim was based on a contract concluded between the parties, under which the applicant had been obliged to create documentaries and several short films.
6.  The applicant’s requests for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees were repeatedly examined by the District, Regional and Supreme Courts. Finally, in 2004 the applicant was exempted from the obligation to pay 50 % of the court fees.
7.  On 26 January 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not paid the fees. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 31 August 2005 the above decision was quashed by the Bratislava Regional Court and the case was remitted to the District Court. It was established that the District Court had not correctly calculated the amount of the fees.
9.  On 19 October 2005 the District Court judge asked the applicant to pay the court fees. The applicant was also notified that his failure to pay the fees would lead to the discontinuation of the proceedings.
10.  On 16 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal which was directed against “any future decision to discontinue the proceedings for a failure to pay the court fees”.
11.  As the applicant had not paid the fees, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on 29 November 2005. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 December 2005. It became final on 26 December 2005.
12.  On 10 August 2006 the applicant learned that his appeal of 16 November 2005 had been archived by the District Court and had not been transferred to the court of appeal.
13.  On 1 December 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s costs. Despite the applicant’s request, it did not order the District Court to proceed without further delay.
14.  On 8 September 2006 the applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention and complained that the District Court had refused to deal with his appeal of 16 November 2005. On 4 October 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It noted that pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal could be filed within fifteen days counted from the date when a decision had been served on the party to the proceedings. The law clearly set the beginning and the end of the time-limit. Although the applicant could have foreseen the consequences of his failure to pay the fees, there was no possibility, envisaged by the law, to appeal against a decision which had not yet been adopted. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 13 November 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the Rivne Region.
5.  On 28 March 2001 she lodged a claim with the Mlyniv Court against a collective enterprise N. and the Mlyniv State Administration seeking recovery of her share in N. According to applicant, the share was worth UAH 29,767 (EUR 2,680)[1] on 15 June 2009.
6.  On 10 April 2003 that court scheduled the first hearing for 6 May 2003, and then the next one for 21 January 2005.
7.  On 28 January 2005 the court refused to examine the applicant's complaint owing to her repeated failure to appear at the hearings. On 14 November 2005 the applicant appealed against the refusal.
8.  On 21 March 2006 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) having found no indication that the applicant had been informed of the hearings quashed the decision of 28 January 2005 and remitted the case to the first instance court.
9.  On 1 September 2006 the Mlyniv Court dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 2 October and 12 December 2006 the applicant lodged respectively an appeal and a rectified appeal.
10.  On 25 January 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 1 September 2006. This decision was not appealed against and became final.
11.  According to the Government, out of the nine court hearings scheduled in the course of the proceedings (six in the first instance court, three in the second instance court), three were adjourned following the respondents' failure or inability to appear, one each was adjourned due the presiding judge being on sick leave, both parties failure to appear and the applicant's failure to appear. Also during the proceedings, the applicant filed four procedural requests.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Rivne.
5.  In July 1997 Mr Y. (a private individual) lodged a civil claim against the applicant in a dispute over a house and a plot of land. The applicant lodged a counter-claim against Mr Y., some other private individuals and the local authorities seeking invalidation of several contracts of gift of parts of the house at issue and declaration of his title to premises he had built in that house.
6.  On 3 July 1998 the Rivne Court delivered a judgment in the case. On 30 July 1998 it renewed the applicant's procedural time-limits for lodging his appeal in cassation against the above judgment and on 2 November 1998 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment having remitted the case for fresh consideration.
7.  On 1 December 2005 the Rivne Court rejected the claim of Mr Y. as unsubstantiated, allowed the applicant's counter-claim to the extent that he requested invalidation of the contracts of gift and rejected, as unsubstantiated, his claim concerning declaration of title to the aforementioned premises.
8.  On 13 April 2006 the Rivne Court of Appeal partly amended the above judgment having declared the applicant's title to part of the household and the plot of land.
9.  On 6 May 2006 and 23 October 2008 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the requests of the applicant and the local prosecutor (the latter acting in the applicant's interests) for leave to appeal in cassation.
10.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant twice amended or specified his claim; five hearings were adjourned upon his or his representative's requests or due to his or his representative's failure to appear; nine hearings were adjourned due to both parties' failure to appear. The above delays on the applicant's part protracted the proceedings to approximately one and a half years. Twenty three further hearings were adjourned due to the other party's and third parties' failure to appear or upon their requests and because of the absence or illness of a judge; fifteen hearings were adjourned for unspecified reasons.
11.  Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully sought review of his case in the light of the newly-discovered circumstances.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bialystok.
6.  In 2007 the applicant filed a motion for a disability pension with the Social Security Board. Subsequently, the Board found that he was not entitled to it.
7.  On 13 November 2007 the Białystok Regional Court refused to grant the pension to the applicant.
8.  On 7 May 2008 the Białystok Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 May 2008. By a decision of 27 May 2008 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's request for a legal-aid lawyer to be assigned to the case for the purposes of cassation proceedings.
9.  On 2 June 2008 a lawyer was assigned by the Regional Bar Council to represent the applicant. The lawyer was informed by the Bar at the same time that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal was to expire on 15 July 2008.
10.  In her letter to the court of 23 June 2008 the lawyer stated that she had found no points of law on which a cassation appeal could be based in the applicant's case.
11.  On 9 July 2008, upon the applicant's request, the Court of Appeal transmitted the lawyer's letter to him. The applicant filed a motion to be granted a second legal-aid lawyer. The motion was dismissed on 15 July 2008, the court finding that the applicant had already been granted a legal‑aid lawyer.